If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

"What we want is to place doubts. Why do the couple's friends' statements and their own not tally?

"Why is it that the times which they say they went to check on the children in the apartment, when they say they were in the restaurant, do not coincide."

The TV journalist said he and co-author, Luis Maia, decided to end their book when the McCanns went home to Rothley in Leicestershire because their departure marked the "the end of a cycle"

He said: "Nobody yet knows how it will end. But we had to find an end.

"The end of our story happens when – having already been made 'arguidos' (suspects) – Kate and Gerry decided to abandon Portugal and return to England, something they said they did not want to do." The 208 page book will also examine the way the case has been reported all over the world.

"The reader will have in the book a very global perception of the case, even in terms of analysing the way in which the story was covered," said Mr Carvalho, who works for Portugal's top commercial television channel, TVI. "This book allows a better knowledge of the case."

Comment

I haven't looked at the child porn testimony since the trial, but there's a few things which stick in my mind, and they are facts, not emotional outbursts.

There's not testimony, but LE interviews and letters where Mr. Westerfield admits to some of the child porn. I say some because it was second hand, I think, and undefined in terms of quantity.

Artic Momy put up a well thought out post years ago where she draws the connection between the type of some of the videos found, and what Mr. Westerfield's son liked.

What I noticed right away with the local LE person who was testifying during the trial is that he didn't realize that the time in email header stamps was GMT, not PCT. To me, this immediately calls into question his supposed level of expertise.

When I worked for the gov I used to go to these monthly computer security meetings and at one they had a guest speaker from SDPD. The people I worked with knew points about security from working with this stuff from a technical level. While this speaker had some good ideas to reiterate it was clear he didn't have the technical background to really know what he was talking about. You got the feeling he learned about this by attending other talks by people just as half informed.

I have no idea if this was the same guy who testified during the trial for the prosecution, and I doubt it was, but I could see the same lack of know-how.

In years past I've navigated my way through porn sites for various reasons, none being that I want to inform congress, but I've found if you download a compressed file of images, you don't know what your are getting.

The other thing is when the file extracts itself, it sets up it's own system of directories, if that was the case when somebody compacted it.

The idea that someone has to take the time to 'label' or categorize files on a hard disk is simply ludicrous when software you install and files you unzip do this stuff for you. This is fact, not emotion, talking. That a prosecutor can use this little tidbit to emotionally sway a jury who may not even own computers, is sad.

Jennilynn, are you talking about the photo Mr. Dusek tried to make a big deal out of, and it turned out those photos were sent to Mr. Westerfield by his ex-wife, the mother of this young woman? If we're on the same page here that event was truly sickening to me because it showed the lengths someone would go to and lie about to attempt to prosecute another person.

The reason this works in prosecuting people is shown by what you remember. That was a blurb and proved false in court, yet most people remember the innuendo. When you have to convict based on innuendo and not facts, even completely repudiating what you may have used to prosecute people in the past, there's something terribly wrong.

Boris i think you are confusing Jennilynn and Danielle L. Jennilynn is the neice and the Danielle L is the one that was in the photos. Regardless though, I think that part of the trial was about as full of BS as quite a few other things. IMO anyone that actually buys into that these were "crotch shot" photos is 100% viewing this case with blinders on in the direction of just nailing anyone to feel better at night.

I've discussed those photos with people to the point that it's clear they can't comprehend these were simply photos taken at a swim party and that this girls own MOTHER had sent them and in NO WAY saw them as "porn". She flat out said it in an interview!!

Sadly, it took the twisted emotional seed to be planted by the pros into the minds of gullible people. To me it falls right up there with the evil grocery list!!

GG

The spider never understands what the fly is complaining about.

Comment

Boris i think you are confusing Jennilynn and Danielle L. Jennilynn is the neice and the Danielle L is the one that was in the photos. Regardless though, I think that part of the trial was about as full of BS as quite a few other things. IMO anyone that actually buys into that these were "crotch shot" photos is 100% viewing this case with blinders on in the direction of just nailing anyone to feel better at night.

I've discussed those photos with people to the point that it's clear they can't comprehend these were simply photos taken at a swim party and that this girls own MOTHER had sent them and in NO WAY saw them as "porn". She flat out said it in an interview!!

Sadly, it took the twisted emotional seed to be planted by the pros into the minds of gullible people. To me it falls right up there with the evil grocery list!!

GG

I think you're right, I am confusing the two women. This was the finger in the mouth one, right? John's daughter.

This story is also full of holes. It was discussed when it happened and dismissed.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can recall an episode when they are just awakened from sleep at age 5 or 7, when they reach age 20. Especially when it was never a deal during the intervening time.

Comment

Why are you more interested in evidence that at best, was a character assassination? The prosecution wanted to make DW look evil, and wanted the jury to ignore the facts, just as you are doing. The prosecution desperately needed a reason for a man like DW to kidnap a 7 year old child. What they failed to do, is to connect any of this BS to Danielle's being discovered missing, or ending up at Dehesa. None of the facts support this accusation, and science proves it didn't happen. Just to make sure no one has anymore questions, leak that DW was going to tell them where the body was, "minutes" before the body was found. Then watch how the public eats it up.

Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you're innocent. Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one.

Thanks for the link Lil Red! I don't know much about this case, but these statements could certainly apply to any book written about the David Westerfield trial.

The following is for Bob...

Q: LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO I THINK JANUARY 25TH OF THE YEAR 2002, THE WEEKEND BEFORE THIS THING HAPPENED.

A: M-HM.

snip...

Q: WHEN YOU GOT OVER TO THE VAN DAM HOME, WHAT WAS GOING ON, DO YOU RECALL?

A: I BELIEVE BRENDA WASN'T READY. SHE WAS UPSTAIRS. AND WE JUST WAITED DOWN IN THE KITCHEN FOR HER.

Q: DID YOU SEE DAMON VAN DAM?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING?

A: PLAYING VIDEO GAMES ON THE COUCH.

Q: WITH ANYONE?

A: YEAH. WITH THE BOYS.

Q: DID YOU SEE DANIELLE?

A: YES. SHE WAS IN THE KITCHEN AT THE TABLE.

Any questions Bob?

You might want to review Damon's testimony for his recollection of events Feb. 1st, and HIS recollection of Jan. 25th.

Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you're innocent. Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one.

Q: LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO I THINK JANUARY 25TH OF THE YEAR 2002, THE WEEKEND BEFORE THIS THING HAPPENED.

A: M-HM.

snip...

Q: WHEN YOU GOT OVER TO THE VAN DAM HOME, WHAT WAS GOING ON, DO YOU RECALL?

A: I BELIEVE BRENDA WASN'T READY. SHE WAS UPSTAIRS. AND WE JUST WAITED DOWN IN THE KITCHEN FOR HER.

Q: DID YOU SEE DAMON VAN DAM?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING?

A: PLAYING VIDEO GAMES ON THE COUCH.

Q: WITH ANYONE?

A: YEAH. WITH THE BOYS.

Q: DID YOU SEE DANIELLE?

A: YES. SHE WAS IN THE KITCHEN AT THE TABLE.

Any questions Bob?

You might want to review Damon's testimony for his recollection of events Feb. 1st, and HIS recollection of Jan. 25th.

I do not have time at the moment, but I will review the transcripts. From the surface, it does appear to describe the evening of Friday, February 1st rather than one week earlier. But it could very well have been a normal Friday for the van Dam's.

Question for you Patrick and for others. Why is it that you seem to make so much effort to convert me to the other side of the fence. Granted, outside of Sam10antha and Sheeee, not many other G posters visit here and come rarely. But you and Boris especially seem to make great efforts to make me "see the wrong in my position".

Bob (VOF)

Democrats believe the glass is hall full.

Republicans believe they own the glass.

Comment

If they were eager, why did they wait over 40 hours to convict? If the jury had not agreed on the DP, Judge Mudd would have been forced to sentence DW to LIP without possibility of parole, putting him in the general prison population, which in turn would have put him at greater risk from other prisoners.

So even if they were not all death penalty qualified jurors, they still could have convicted Westerfield.

Bob (VOF)

Bob, those jurors were trying to find him innocent. Don't you understand? Fourty hours is
a short time in the exercise in proving a negative,which we both know can't be done at all.

Dory

Comment

I do not have time at the moment, but I will review the transcripts. From the surface, it does appear to describe the evening of Friday, February 1st rather than one week earlier. But it could very well have been a normal Friday for the van Dam's.

Question for you Patrick and for others. Why is it that you seem to make so much effort to convert me to the other side of the fence. Granted, outside of Sam10antha and Sheeee, not many other G posters visit here and come rarely. But you and Boris especially seem to make great efforts to make me "see the wrong in my position".

Bob (VOF)

I appreciate your taking the time to review the transcripts. I believe you are a good person Bob, and have simply fallen on the dark side. I think the truth really does matter to you. Hopefully your more interested in the truth, than popular opinion.

Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you're innocent. Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one.

Comment

I do not have time at the moment, but I will review the transcripts. From the surface, it does appear to describe the evening of Friday, February 1st rather than one week earlier. But it could very well have been a normal Friday for the van Dam's.

Question for you Patrick and for others. Why is it that you seem to make so much effort to convert me to the other side of the fence. Granted, outside of Sam10antha and Sheeee, not many other G posters visit here and come rarely. But you and Boris especially seem to make great efforts to make me "see the wrong in my position".

Bob (VOF)

Bob,

I'm not trying to convert your thinking..but I really didn't have much conversation with you before that I remember. I'm just enjoying having the opportunity to have a discussion with you about this at all. I joined here rather late and missed much good conversation from
poster on both sides.

Comment

I do not have time at the moment, but I will review the transcripts. From the surface, it does appear to describe the evening of Friday, February 1st rather than one week earlier. But it could very well have been a normal Friday for the van Dam's.

Question for you Patrick and for others. Why is it that you seem to make so much effort to convert me to the other side of the fence. Granted, outside of Sam10antha and Sheeee, not many other G posters visit here and come rarely. But you and Boris especially seem to make great efforts to make me "see the wrong in my position".

Bob (VOF)

I don't so much want to change people's minds, as I want to make them aware of actual evidence and let them think for themselves.

In my mind I don't see this as an effort to convince people, as much as I, and I hate to use this word, educate people about what really happened.

The reason I think this is important has many facets. As I've mentioned I was able to watch most of the Westerfield trial, and that's a rarity in court cases, even though these things are supposed to be public. So you get a heck of a lot more detail than you receive from newspapers or summarized on the evening news.

My thoughts at the time were that none of this stuff hung together, yet they had a suspect who was reported on in the press, and you have to go ahead and try to convict them any way you can to save your job.

You could not pay me enough money to work in a situation like that.

Just like the political doublespeak you hear from political parties, you heard about it during and after this trial. People who don't do their job are handed awards and raises. That's not too hard to figure out because this is the way the world works, but when there are obvious discrepancies you just have to ask questions.

These discrepancies are what I want to bring to light, because I think something really strange happened and they nailed a neighbor for some reason.

There is absolutly nothing which ties Mr. Westerfield to Danielle's disappearance. There is no evidence of a crime being committed, but trace evidence of a visit just days before, which is what you would expect.

When dogs tell you there's no trace of a scent of Danielle in his RV, and the entomology evidence tells you he couldn't have done it, you wonder what lengths the prosecution will go through to obtain a conviction, because this is their suspect. I think this happens a lot.

You also get people like sheeee saying entomology simply didn't work in this case. That's a pretty broad statement and I tend to wonder what part of this system didn't work. I get the feeling it *did* work but people are simply not happy with the conclusion, because it conflicts with their preconceived ideas.

And this is an important point. Things like court cases tend to get supposedly solved by inflaming emotion, instead of people kicking back and logically looking at the evidence.

I've brought up the point several times, and no one will address it, that if Mr. Faulkner was two weeks off in his estimate over a 4 week period, that's a 100% error rate.

These kinds of errors do not happen today in most things, thanks to peer review. Have you noticed the problems with the evidence in this case? Undocumented. No photos, no notes. Animal hairs used which was a first. I think this is also the first time phlange prints were used.

This is not standard procedure, because if someone committed a crime there should be evidence of it, you wouldn't have to go bend rules to convince a jury.

Comment

I don't so much want to change people's minds, as I want to make them aware of actual evidence and let them think for themselves.

In my mind I don't see this as an effort to convince people, as much as I, and I hate to use this word, educate people about what really happened.

The reason I think this is important has many facets. As I've mentioned I was able to watch most of the Westerfield trial, and that's a rarity in court cases, even though these things are supposed to be public. So you get a heck of a lot more detail than you receive from newspapers or summarized on the evening news.

My thoughts at the time were that none of this stuff hung together, yet they had a suspect who was reported on in the press, and you have to go ahead and try to convict them any way you can to save your job.

You could not pay me enough money to work in a situation like that.

Just like the political doublespeak you hear from political parties, you heard about it during and after this trial. People who don't do their job are handed awards and raises. That's not too hard to figure out because this is the way the world works, but when there are obvious discrepancies you just have to ask questions.

These discrepancies are what I want to bring to light, because I think something really strange happened and they nailed a neighbor for some reason.

There is absolutly nothing which ties Mr. Westerfield to Danielle's disappearance. There is no evidence of a crime being committed, but trace evidence of a visit just days before, which is what you would expect.

When dogs tell you there's no trace of a scent of Danielle in his RV, and the entomology evidence tells you he couldn't have done it, you wonder what lengths the prosecution will go through to obtain a conviction, because this is their suspect. I think this happens a lot.

You also get people like sheeee saying entomology simply didn't work in this case. That's a pretty broad statement and I tend to wonder what part of this system didn't work. I get the feeling it *did* work but people are simply not happy with the conclusion, because it conflicts with their preconceived ideas.

And this is an important point. Things like court cases tend to get supposedly solved by inflaming emotion, instead of people kicking back and logically looking at the evidence.

I've brought up the point several times, and no one will address it, that if Mr. Faulkner was two weeks off in his estimate over a 4 week period, that's a 100% error rate.

These kinds of errors do not happen today in most things, thanks to peer review. Have you noticed the problems with the evidence in this case? Undocumented. No photos, no notes. Animal hairs used which was a first. I think this is also the first time phlange prints were used.

This is not standard procedure, because if someone committed a crime there should be evidence of it, you wouldn't have to go bend rules to convince a jury.

I don't want to do this at a forum get together, however, I would like the opportunity to meet with you, Patrick, John Neal and a few others if they are willing to discuss this case face to face, away from the back and forth of the forum. I do not know where everyone lives, but I obviously know you and John are in San Diego and Patrick in Orange County. Since I am coming from Ventura County, maybe we can meet in Orange County. Just a suggestion.

Boris, I will give you this. You had an opportunity to view the entire trial, whereas I did not. I also want to read up more on Faulkner, Goff, Haskell and see what their viewpoint is. Their timelines did vary some as to date and end date for exposure of Danielle's body to insects. I think that wide windown did not give the jury a solid feeling about entomology. I believe it has value, but is not as precise because there are always mitigating factors.

Anyway, I am always congenial and would listen and discuss the case. I don't know what everyone's time frame is, but I suggest sometime in early 2008 as the holidays are almost upon us.

So you and others here let me know what you think.

Bob (VOF)

Democrats believe the glass is hall full.

Republicans believe they own the glass.

Comment

I don't want to do this at a forum get together, however, I would like the opportunity to meet with you, Patrick, John Neal and a few others if they are willing to discuss this case face to face, away from the back and forth of the forum. I do not know where everyone lives, but I obviously know you and John are in San Diego and Patrick in Orange County. Since I am coming from Ventura County, maybe we can meet in Orange County. Just a suggestion.

Boris, I will give you this. You had an opportunity to view the entire trial, whereas I did not. I also want to read up more on Faulkner, Goff, Haskell and see what their viewpoint is. Their timelines did vary some as to date and end date for exposure of Danielle's body to insects. I think that wide windown did not give the jury a solid feeling about entomology. I believe it has value, but is not as precise because there are always mitigating factors.

Anyway, I am always congenial and would listen and discuss the case. I don't know what everyone's time frame is, but I suggest sometime in early 2008 as the holidays are almost upon us.

So you and others here let me know what you think.

Bob (VOF)

I also agree a forum get-together is not the proper place for this.

Here's the thing about entomology, you can overwhelm people with boring facts. Sometimes you, as an attorney, do this on purpose, so a jury tends not to listen to what a so-called expert is saying, after you've been hearing this for days.

In this case Mr. Faulkner provided the tightest time line, with successive witnesses giving broader time lines. This was because Mr. Faulkner looked at things he could hold in his hand while the other people simply studied the paper reports these first people put out. I read a book by Dr. Goff I found at the library, and I was really surprised to see him repudiate these standards he espoused in his book while he was on the stand in this case for the prosecution.

Here again it's a matter of facts versus emotion, although what someone is paying you to be an expert witness certainly comes into play.

Flies seem to be rock solid stable in development time according to temperature. Folks have shown this to the approval of other people in the field. They are extremely consistent, hence their forensic value.

These things are extremely valuable in the first several weeks. That's the best time for the greatest accuracy. Of course one of the variables which gets introduced is that you have to know what the temperature was.

The most important thing you need to know is if a 10 degree difference in temperature over several days can result in things being shifted by a day or two or two weeks. These people work with this stuff all the time, they know it cannot lead to a two week error in a four week period, unless there were extremely unusual conditions involved.

So what we've got is some conclusion which flies in the face of facts, and I don't like that. I realize if you have the 'right' person things don't fall neatly into place, but in this case *everything* looks convoluted and disguised.

The interesting thing about this is the post trial publicity put out which says there were too many amazing coincidences which tied Mr. Westerfield to this case. After carefully looking at all this stuff I began to think that there were too many coincidences which magically appeared or were discarded which allowed him to somehow be convicted.

It would be interesting to do a separate discussion thing though. I've found it's much faster to get ideas across by talking than typing.

Comment

I think you're right, I am confusing the two women. This was the finger in the mouth one, right? John's daughter.

This story is also full of holes. It was discussed when it happened and dismissed.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can recall an episode when they are just awakened from sleep at age 5 or 7, when they reach age 20. Especially when it was never a deal during the intervening time.

This is a sad commentary. You are displaying a callous disregard for this young woman's intelligence and her retelling of an obviously traumatic event.

In fact, as I stated earlier, the entire line of posting is so calculated as ya'll attempt to portray the evidence as trivial and the man as innocent.

David Westerfield was convicted by a thoughtful jury and, IMO, that conviction will stand. DW was not the man so many of you pretend to remember. He was an alcoholic/problem drinker who displayed signs of sexual addiciton; he was emotionally and socially isolated; he was experiencing financial difficulties; he was at the mid-point in his life with his "dreams" deteriorating; he became physical when drunk and frustrated with his girl friend; he collected all types of porn--and although small he DID classify and save this child pornography as well as other types of pornography including homosexual and bestiality; he could well have observed or been a victim of sexual abuse by his maternal grandfather (Marple); and, he was a voyeur, filming unsuspecting neighbors and sexual partners.

Westerfield was an accident waiting to happen. Thank goodness he did not have more time to get rid of evidence or cover his crime. Fortunately LE was able to recover Danielle's blood (as well as his blood) from the jacket left at the cleaners. They found the phlange print in the MH. (Do keep in mid that pre-adolescent kids' prints don't last much longer than 2-4 days...) Danielle's hairs were in the master bedroom and the MH sink. Her dog's hairs were in the MH. (These were transferred--probably from Danielle's clothing.) The entomology evidence was skewed. Ya'll deny the possibility that her body was covered sometime prior to its discovery. You must discount all the maybes and cling to lab conditions to soothe your consciences that "Dave didn't do it."

HOWEVER, there are many who are also intelligent, who followed the case, who believe in the righteousness of the verdict. I'm just ONE of the many.

(PS--There are numerous local defense attorneys and national experts on crime and/or behavior who also observed the entire trial who support the verdict. In fact, none of the entomologists are particularly incensed that the jury disregarded their testimony. Carry on--it's time for a BWD or Shirley appearance to try to discredit my opinion...AND, their appearance isn't for my benefit. )